What can we say?

I am fairly sympathetic to actually keeping recruiting stations gun free. Physical security for weapons in rented retail spaces would be an issue. But there simply is no reason why reserve centers and national guard armories cannot implement a physical security/counter-terrorism plan that includes an armed servicemember on duty during drills.

9 thoughts on “Chattanooga.”

  1. I’m sitting here sipping some Famous Grouse and wondering just WTF is wrong with us? WHY, after the shooting in Arkansas are our NCOs living and working in “gun free”, aka target rich environment zones? Why, after Fort Hood are senior NCOs and officers not armed when on duty? The local radio show said that, of course we don’t need to broadcast the name of the Kuwaiti citizen who perpetrated this. Political correctness and stupidity are killing us. Again – WTF???

  2. Got some Highland Park here
    Not much you really can say without losing the head if you start to dwell on it

  3. Think of armed Reserve Centers in the same vein as concrete barriers set up pell mell to deter a straight in approach. No reason whatsoever for service members (most probably returned from combat tours), to be killed without the ability to return fire while bank employees have armed guards. Sand bagged positions I say, but then I am from Texas so there is that.

  4. From my comments on the porch:

    I’ve intended to withhold comment here and at Brad’s place until my anger subsided. Yet, it hasn’t. We have pandered to our sworn enemy, led these last six and a half years by that detestable Quisling in the White House. His Cairo speech was exactly what it sounded like. It was a clarion call to let the filthy muhammedans of world know that an Islamist sympathizer occupied the White House. Spare me the whiny self-righteous rationalizing that he isn’t a “Manchurian Candidate” and pay attention to what happens around us. Our government is full of filthy muhammedans who should be behind bars. We allow into Foggy Bottom violent Muslim Brotherhood degenerates who should instead be shot on sight. All the while our Quisling in Chief declares how he “stands with Islam” and “the future cannot belong to those who slander the prophet”.

    Barack Hussein Obama is precisely what he seems. An anti-American muhammedan who has as his goal the subjugation of our once-great Republic. Don’t tell me he is a “Christian”, when he sat for decades listening to the racist, anti-American, anti-Semite screed of a man who embraces “Brother Farrakhan”, and called it a Christian “church”. And please, Salamander, don’t push that it is foolish to even consider the idea Obama was foreign-born. Which matters, Constitutionally. Although, in the end, everything about him is foreign to our Nation, irrespective of birth.

    Everything you need to know can be gleaned from how many people from the Administration have made public statements implicating all Muslims in the same manner that they made them implicating all whites for Charleston. And from the fact that Obama will use this, and Fort Hood, and the Freeway Shooter (another Muslim extremist) in his list of “mass shootings” to make his case for gun control and eventual confiscation. Oh, and how many White House or Justice officials attend the funerals for those slain Marines? Here’s betting it is fewer than those who attended Trayvon’s, or Michael Brown’s, or Freddy Gray’s. Because even if he had a mythical son who looked like one of those Marines, he would have disowned that son, because the son would have joined the Corps and become precisely the anti-American Obama hates most. One with the courage to pledge his life to defend our liberties and our country. That courage is resented by cowards like Barack Obama.

    What to do? Arm up. And deport. Forcibly. Which we will not have the stomach to do, of course. And have the armed citizenry of this country stand up to both our enemies and our government, if necessary. Because, between the two, we have neither freedom nor safety, except that which WE the people can enforce.

  5. Gee, what if we allowed people who are actually trained in the use of firearms and expected to use them in combat to carry them if they wished to do so? What would be the problem with that, exactly?

  6. The innocent are made to suffer along with the guilty – such is the way of the world. We get the government that we deserve. This is what we deserve for electing (or so the story goes) a mulatto jackanapes. Most of us here are innocent, but we will suffer nonetheless.

    1. The idiotic, suicidal “no guns on base” and “let Muslims into the country” policies both predate the mulatto jackanapes.

  7. Lagavulin 16 here. The first leadership course I took taught me two basic principles: accomplish the mission and take care of your troops. Seems like this falls squarely under both principles. Whether or not troops should be armed as a normal circumstance should be based on the discretion of the chain of command and take into account the risks identified. And by chain of command, I’d defer to those in immediate command, not some light Colonel in the Pentagon. Having the senior NCO at a recruiting station armed is not excessively obtrusive. If we can trust a myriad of other federal employees with arms, it’s baffling that men and women entrusted with national defense aren’t similarly equipped. And if an E6 or E7 can’t be trusted, we’ve got other problems.

  8. The open glass windows and doors of the typical station need to be backed up with something more bullet proof, then again if they were the next attack would be an VIED.
    No way they can secure firearms in that situation.
    Panic rooms?

Comments are closed.